gwb Admin Shuts Down Voluntary Mad Cow Inspections

[Psychoblues]

The Bush Administration is making clear (to those just catching on) what it means when it CLAIMS to believe in "free markets".

Not only has the administration bowed to lobbyist demands that it NOT INSTITUTE comprehensive testing for mad cow disease, but is now using federal power to protect Big Agriculture from competition from Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, a small Kansas company that wants to test all of its own products VOLUNTARILY.

Yep, for today's Republican Party, "free markets" ,makes for great rhetoric.

(For the GOP, "free markets" are dandy. . . . . just don't let some upstart entrepreneur become a threat to the wallets of the fat cats stuffing your campaign coffers. Why, if you let some little Kansas operation offer beef actually inspected for and free of mad cow disease, that might force the big boys to inspect their beef too. . . . . Or worse. Why, what if Americans were to hear about a sick cow? Holy cow, they might choose vegetables!)







US on Mad Cow: Don't Test All Cattle

Agriculture Department Fights to Keep Meatpackers From Testing All Cattle for Mad Cow


By MATT APUZZO
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON

The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease.

The Agriculture Department tests less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. But Kansas-based Creekstone Farms Premium Beef wants to test all of its cows.

Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive test, too.

The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.

A federal judge ruled in March that such tests must be allowed. U.S. District Judge James Robertson noted that Creekstone sought to use the same test the government relies on and said the government didn't have the authority to restrict it.

The ruling was to take effect June 1, but the Agriculture Department said Tuesday it would appeal effectively delaying the testing until the court challenge plays out.

Mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, is linked to more than 150 human deaths worldwide, mostly in Britain.

There have been three cases of mad cow disease in the U.S. The first, in December 2003 in Washington state, was in a cow that had been imported from Canada. The second, in 2005, was in a Texas-born cow. The third was confirmed last year in an Alabama cow.

It would appear that the GOP is as sincere about "free markets" as they are about the responsible fiscal policy, "small government", the "rule of law", "defending the constitution", "individual liberty", and "spreading democracy".


What next from the "conservative" linguistic geniuses who have enlightened us with "unitary executive" theory?

Much More: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3222947

When is enough, enough?

[Said1]

They should be tested and arrive with clean papers from the breeder, if they don't already.

[Sir Evil]

Psycho, have you been tested yet? :D

Really though I can feel your worries on this one with the whopping 3 cases.
Not really sure what to say as the article doesn't appear to say why the administration would be against the testing. I'm sure those are cost effective corner cutting issues. I think this part stands out:



Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive test, too.

So now the agriculture department tests less than 1 percent anyway, so with the administration maybe supporting some of the meatpackers out there you wanna know when enough is enough?

:laugh2:

This is really reaching, even for you Psycho!

[Sir Evil]

They should be tested and arrive with clean papers from the breeder, if they don't already.

What, and not allow Bush to spread massive amounts of mad cow disease around the world just because he's a prick?

[manu1959]

There have been three cases of mad cow disease in the U.S.



PANIC!

[Sir Evil]

PANIC!

:lol::lol::lol:

[diuretic]

I hope our beef producers are making a big fuss about this. The US is cutting into our markets again, primarily in South Korea, so it would be great if we could convince them that US beef could be dodgy and to take ours because it's known to be disease free.

[hjmick]

Fuck it, eat chicken if you think it's that big a threat.

[hjmick]

I mean seriously, you do realize that more people have died eating salad in the last twelve months than there have been cases of mad cow disease in the last four years. Salad. Bad lettuce and spinach have done more damage in the U.S. than mad cow disease.

BAN BROCCOLI NOW!

LETTUCE DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE! IT KILLS EVERYONE! BAN IT NOW!

POPEYE HATES US! STOP SPINACH NOW!

[Kathianne]

PANIC!

Exactly. There have been 4 cow with BSE in US:



As of May 2007, fourteen cases of BSE have been identified in North America. Of these fourteen cases, three were identified in the U.S. and eleven in Canada. Of the three cases identified in the U.S., one was born in Canada; of the 11 cases identified in Canada, one was imported from the United Kingdom. The proportion of Canadian-born BSE cases identified by Canadian authorities through the testing of animals in Canada, 2003-April 2007 (10 cases among approximately 160,000 animals tested) is presently statistically significantly higher (26 fold higher) than the proportion of U.S.-born BSE cases identified by U.S. authorities through the testing of animals in the U.S. during the comparable period (2 cases among more than 875,000 animals tested).

Six of the eleven BSE cases in Canadian-born cattle were known to have been born after the implementation of the 1997 Canadian feed ban; five of these six were born more than eighteen months afterwards. One of the eleven Canadian-born BSE cases was reported in an animal that was born either before or shortly after implementation of the 1997 feed ban.

The BSE strain that is responsible for most of the BSE cases in Canada is the same strain linked to the outbreak in the United Kingdom. This strain has not yet been identified in any U.S.-born bovine. Both of the U.S.-born BSE cases and one Canadian-born BSE case were 10 years of age or older and all three of these older cases were linked to an atypical BSE strain known as the H-strain.

One (9%) of the 11 Canadian-born BSE cases and 2 (100%) of the U.S.-born BSE cases occurred in animals that were known to be at least ten years of age. These significantly different (P<.05) proportions correlate with the observed BSE strain differences in the two countries because, to date, only the older cattle have the atypical H strain.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is enhancing Canadian feed controls to more effectively prevent and quickly eliminate BSE from Canada. CFIA’s new feed control regulations will ban most proteins, including potentially BSE infectious tissues known as “specified risk materials” (SRM) from all animal feeds, pet foods, and fertilizers, not just from cattle feed as required by the ban instituted in 1997. The 1997 feed ban in Canada was similar to the feed ban instituted in the United States that same year. As recently reported by CFIA, removing SRM from the entire animal feed system addresses risks associated with the potential contamination of cattle feed during production, distribution, storage, and use. Applying the same measure to pet food and fertilizer materials addresses the possible exposure of cattle and other susceptible animals to these products. This enhanced Canadian feed ban is scheduled to come into effect on July 12, 2007. CFIA expects that with this new ban, BSE should be eliminated from the Canadian cattle herd by about the year 2017.


Additional Case of BSE Detected in Canada: On May 2, 2007, the 11 th case of BSE in a Canadian-born bovine was identified by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). The eleven cases include one in a Canadian-born bovine identified in the United States in 2003 (see bar graph below). Preliminary information indicates that this most recent BSE case occurred in a mature dairy cow from British Columbia born in 2001, about 4 years after the 1997 Canadian feed ban.

For more information about BSE in Canada, see the Canada Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) website.


http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:6u_39yyUeTkJ:www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/bse/+cases+of+mad+cow+disease+united+states+site:.gov&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

The government doesn't want a panic to break out, that would hurt both farmers and the public.

[typomaniac]

gwb Admin Shuts Down Voluntary Mad Cow Inspections
Probably Bush just thought that, if the cows are already mad, they're not likely to volunteer. :laugh:

[Said1]

Probably Bush just thought that, if the cows are already mad, they're not likely to volunteer. :laugh:

Is that you in the avatar?

[JohnDoe]

And the BELIEF in the free market??? What happened to this, the belief in a free market? This is Bullcrap for the government to stop private entities from testing all of their cows.

The small company that wants to do this, wants an edge against their competitors...they should be allowed to do such imo....even if mad cow is not prevelent in the USA there are plenty of people that worry about it out there and they should be able to ease their own minds with this kind of product on the market.

This reminds me of a lawsuit the milk industry placed against a small time milk producer who used no hormones or vacinations in any of their cattle that they got their milk from and labling their cartons of milk products that they were hormone and vacination free. The BIG BUSINESS milk companies sued this small company saying that when they labeled their product in that manner made the BIG BUSINESS milk industry's milk seem as though something was wrong with it, by using hormones and vacinations on their cattle.... i don't know who won the case but i am going to look it up now to find out.

I think it is wrong to not allow the free market work in this case and wrong for the government to interphere, taking sides with one private entity over another. They should have allowed the big corporations to sue the small time business to stop them from doing it and allow the courts to decide if it was a detriment imo.

jd

[typomaniac]

Is that you in the avatar?

See this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=166504&postcount=3) for the answer. ;)

[manu1959]

And the BELIEF in the free market??? What happened to this, the belief in a free market? This is Bullcrap for the government to stop private entities from testing all of their cows.

The small company that wants to do this, wants an edge against their competitors...they should be allowed to do such imo....even if mad cow is not prevelent in the USA there are plenty of people that worry about it out there and they should be able to ease their own minds with this kind of product on the market.

This reminds me of a lawsuit the milk industry placed against a small time milk producer who used no hormones or vacinations in any of their cattle that they got their milk from and labling their cartons of milk products that they were hormone and vacination free. The BIG BUSINESS milk companies sued this small company saying that when they labeled their product in that manner made the BIG BUSINESS milk industry's milk seem as though something was wrong with it, by using hormones and vacinations on their cattle.... i don't know who won the case but i am going to look it up now to find out.

I think it is wrong to not allow the free market work in this case and wrong for the government to interphere, taking sides with one private entity over another. They should have allowed the big corporations to sue the small time business to stop them from doing it and allow the courts to decide if it was a detriment imo.

jd


are you pro free market when it comes to health care and sub prime loans....:poke:

[JohnDoe]

are you pro free market when it comes to health care and sub prime loans....:poke:

Are you?

do you think loan sharks and usery should be allowed with no penalty? do you think money should just be printed by anyone or any state?

do you think doctors should not have to be licenced and require no education and anyone should be allowed to to cut you open? do you think that abortions should be allowed with no restrictions up to the delivery point? do you think any medicine should be on the shelves, harmful or not, with no regulations?

------------------------------------------------------

I SAID, i think it is wrong for the government to interphere with the free market in this case....:slap:

the government is not protecting the citizen, in this case, whereas with healthcare and banking, regulations are there to protect the citizen....though i do feel in some instances it is over regulated, i feel it is a necessity for some regulations.

In this case, the government is picking one businessman over the next businessman and favoring them.

jd

[Kathianne]

Are you?

do you think loan sharks and usery should be allowed with no penalty? do you think money should just be printed by anyone or any state?

do you think doctors should not have to be licenced and require no education and anyone should be allowed to to cut you open? do you think that abortions should be allowed with no restrictions up to the delivery point? do you think any medicine should be on the shelves, harmful or not, with no regulations?

------------------------------------------------------

I SAID, i think it is wrong for the government to interphere with the free market in this case....:slap:

the government is not protecting the citizen, in this case, whereas with healthcare and banking, regulations are there to protect the citizen....though i do feel in some instances it is over regulated, i feel it is a necessity for some regulations.

In this case, the government is picking one businessman over the next businessman and favoring them.

jd

So you think the government should allow a destruction of the ranchers, while protecting other groups. You are saying that an upstart, with no qualifications other than causing panic should be able to destroy ranches all but probably 1 or 2 have never had mad cow. Based only on a gimmick to imply that anyone not testing all their cows leaves 'the public' open to harm. Never mind that the 'upstart' has few head, which the rancher of prime beef in TX or OK has thousands.

On the other hand you see no reason to hold the loan takers responsible for their own actions.

Talk about hypocrisy +

[JohnDoe]

So you think the government should allow a destruction of the ranchers, while protecting other groups. You are saying that an upstart, with no qualifications other than causing panic should be able to destroy ranches all but probably 1 or 2 have never had mad cow. Based only on a gimmick to imply that anyone not testing all their cows leaves 'the public' open to harm. Never mind that the 'upstart' has few head, which the rancher of prime beef in TX or OK has thousands.

On the other hand you see no reason to hold the loan takers responsible for their own actions.

Talk about hypocrisy +

Do you really think the upstart would destroy the big ranches? Why? the worst that could happen which i highly doubt... would be.... it forced the big ranches to test all of their cows which could actually increase their business worldwide, with other countries that have been concerned with our beef and mad cow is how i see it?

What was your hypocrisy statement about kathianne? Boy oh boy, how touchy this evening

[Kathianne]

Do you really think the upstart would destroy the big ranches? Why? the worst that could happen which i highly doubt... would be.... it forced the big ranches to test all of their cows which could actually increase their business worldwide, with other countries that have been concerned with our beef and mad cow is how i see it?

What was your hypocrisy statement about kathianne? Boy oh boy, how touchy this evening

What don't you get about this JD? I have 10 cows. I say, "Test all." You have 10,000 cows, you say, "There hasn't been a case in this state, I'll do a representative test." It comes back negative. We are both from TX. I take out an ad, "100% of my stock is proven Mad Cow Free." Please respond.

[manu1959]

Are you?

do you think loan sharks and usery should be allowed with no penalty? do you think money should just be printed by anyone or any state?

do you think doctors should not have to be licenced and require no education and anyone should be allowed to to cut you open? do you think that abortions should be allowed with no restrictions up to the delivery point? do you think any medicine should be on the shelves, harmful or not, with no regulations?

------------------------------------------------------

I SAID, i think it is wrong for the government to interphere with the free market in this case....:slap:

the government is not protecting the citizen, in this case, whereas with healthcare and banking, regulations are there to protect the citizen....though i do feel in some instances it is over regulated, i feel it is a necessity for some regulations.

In this case, the government is picking one businessman over the next businessman and favoring them.

jd

3 mad cow cases in the history of the US and you want govt. intervention to protect the people.....from what?..... loan sharking, usury unlicensed doctors .....holy crap? talk about hyperbole.....

[JohnDoe]

3 mad cow cases in the history of the US and you want govt. intervention to protect the people.....from what?..... loan sharking, usury unlicensed doctors .....holy crap? talk about hyperbole.....

What in God's name are you talking about? Can you read and comprehend what you read manu? :slap:

I don't want gvt intervention, i want them to stay out of it and let the free market work and the justice system work which ruled on this already, but it is YOU that wants the gvt to stop small businesses that want to test their cattle, from testing all of thier cattle for mad cows....

what the heck?

get with it!!!

-------------------------------------------

And I might add that this might actually get the free market rolling on a way to test for bse, in a cost effective manner, bringing on more ingenuity in the market place and increasing a usa bse testing business.....?

i don't want the gvt to mandate this, i want the free market to work....

And in truth, i do not think these smaller business would necessarily affect any of the larger ranchers, they would just find their niche and find some of the few people that are concerned with the extremely rare case of BSE, and get them to buy their meat, at a much higher price.... like organically grown food....people pay more for it, but others don't give a hoot and pay less for the non-organic foods out there.

what the heck are you babbling about?

jd

[Kathianne]

What in God's name are you talking about? Can you read and comprehend what you read manu? :slap:

I don't want gvt intervention, i want them to stay out of it and let the free market work and the justice system work which ruled on this already, but it is YOU that wants the gvt to stop small businesses that want to test their cattle, from testing all of thier cattle for mad cows....

what the heck?

get with it!!!

-------------------------------------------

And I might add that this might actually get the free market rolling on a way to test for bse, in a cost effective manner, bringing on more ingenuity in the market place and increasing a usa bse testing business.....?

i don't want the gvt to mandate this, i want the free market to work....

And in truth, i do not think these smaller business would necessarily affect any of the larger ranchers, they would just find their niche and find some of the few people that are concerned with the extremely rare case of BSE, and get them to buy their meat, at a much higher price.... like organically grown food....people pay more for it, but others don't give a hoot and pay less for the non-organic foods out there.

what the heck are you babbling about?

jd

Many hours ago I posted the CDC reports, where were you? After you find and read, will you tell him you're sorry?

[JohnDoe]

What don't you get about this JD? I have 10 cows. I say, "Test all." You have 10,000 cows, you say, "There hasn't been a case in this state, I'll do a representative test." It comes back negative. We are both from TX. I take out an ad, "100% of my stock is proven Mad Cow Free." Please respond.
I responded to this in my answer to manu, kathianne....but here it is again:


I don't want gvt intervention, i want them to stay out of it and let the free market work and the justice system work which ruled on this already, but it is YOU that wants the gvt to stop small businesses that want to test their cattle, from testing all of thier cattle for mad cows....


-------------------------------------------

And I might add that this might actually get the free market rolling on a way to test for bse, in a cost effective manner, bringing on more ingenuity in the market place and increasing a usa bse testing business.....?

i don't want the gvt to mandate this, i want the free market to work....

And in truth, i do not think these smaller businesses would necessarily affect any of the larger ranchers, they would just find their niche and find some of the few people that are concerned with the extremely rare case of BSE, and get them to buy their meat, at a much higher price.... like organically grown food....people pay more for it, but others don't give a hoot and pay less for the non-organic foods out there.

jd

[manu1959]

i agree i think the govt should stay out of all private sector stuff....let sub prime and medical sort itself out.....

tell me one thing the gov't runs well....




I responded to this in my answer to manu, kathianne....but here it is again:


I don't want gvt intervention, i want them to stay out of it and let the free market work and the justice system work which ruled on this already, but it is YOU that wants the gvt to stop small businesses that want to test their cattle, from testing all of thier cattle for mad cows....


-------------------------------------------

And I might add that this might actually get the free market rolling on a way to test for bse, in a cost effective manner, bringing on more ingenuity in the market place and increasing a usa bse testing business.....?

i don't want the gvt to mandate this, i want the free market to work....

And in truth, i do not think these smaller business would necessarily affect any of the larger ranchers, they would just find their niche and find some of the few people that are concerned with the extremely rare case of BSE, and get them to buy their meat, at a much higher price.... like organically grown food....people pay more for it, but others don't give a hoot and pay less for the non-organic foods out there.

jd

[AFbombloader]

This is all a conspiracy from the companies selling the test for the disease....maybe we should all go buy stock! :laugh2:

AF:salute:

[JohnDoe]

Many hours ago I posted the CDC reports, where were you? After you find and read, will you tell him you're sorry? haven't read it and don't have the time to read it right now, but i will when i get the chance, was it in one of your posts?

what was the gist of it kathianne? and how did it relate to this particular case of smaller businesses wanting to find their niche in the marketplace, much like organic food growers?

Did it say that what these much smaller farmers do will force the government to test in the same manner, or the larger ranchers to do in this manner, which is literally impossible to do in a cost effective manner for these larger ranchers at this point in time?

I don't see why these smaller businesses can't be allowed to go forward with this as was ruled by the courts, to give them an edge with key customers....and how it would hurt the big guy? Was that part of the article/link from the cdc?


jd

[Kathianne]

haven't read it and don't have the time to read it right now, but i will when i get the chance, was it in one of your posts?

what was the gist of it kathianne? and how did it relate to this particular case of smaller businesses wanting to find their niche in the marketplace, much like organic food growers?

Did it say that what these much smaller farmers do will force the government to test in the same manner, or the larger ranchers to do in this manner, which is literally impossible to do in a cost effective manner for these larger ranchers at this point in time?

I don't see why these smaller businesses can't be allowed to go forward with this as was ruled by the courts, to give them an edge with key customers....and how it would hurt the big guy? Was that part of the article/link from the cdc?


jd
As I said, which I know you saw, I have 100 head, you 10000. It costs for the sake of arguement, $100 per cow. I test all of mine, you test 10%. I take out ads saying 100% of mine are free of disease. You take out ad saying a representative sample of mine shows my supply is safe. I take out subsequent add saying, "What are you so afraid of? Why not test all?"

Which would you buy from? How is this fair?

[Missileman]

What don't you get about this JD? I have 10 cows. I say, "Test all." You have 10,000 cows, you say, "There hasn't been a case in this state, I'll do a representative test." It comes back negative. We are both from TX. I take out an ad, "100% of my stock is proven Mad Cow Free." Please respond.

Where do you think they'll go for the 11th thru 9,990th cows?

[Missileman]

As I said, which I know you saw, I have 100 head, you 10000. It costs for the sake of arguement, $100 per cow. I test all of mine, you test 10%. I take out ads saying 100% of mine are free of disease. You take out ad saying a representative sample of mine shows my supply is safe. I take out subsequent add saying, "What are you so afraid of? Why not test all?"

Which would you buy from? How is this fair?

If the small farmer can make a profit even with testing, the big company can too.

[JohnDoe]

As I said, which I know you saw, I have 100 head, you 10000. It costs for the sake of arguement, $100 per cow. I test all of mine, you test 10%. I take out ads saying 100% of mine are free of disease. You take out ad saying a representative sample of mine shows my supply is safe. I take out subsequent add saying, "What are you so afraid of? Why not test all?"

Which would you buy from? How is this fair?Kathianne, if I cared about bse, i would pay MORE MONEY and purchase the beef from 100% tested cattle, the small guy who had to pay a hundred dollars a head to test them. If I didn't care about BSE I would buy the regular beef that is tested randomly, and pay the LOWER PRICE at the grocery store for it.

What is the difference between this situation and the ORGANIC FOOD business, grown by smaller farmers, which costs alot more at the grocery store?

What is it that you do not understand about this scenario?

It costs more to grow organic foods, just like it costs the small farmer more per cow to test all of his cattle for BSE, and they will charge more for it at the grocers.

Why do you think that it would not work like any other product on the free market? You pay for what you get, walmart quality or designer quality?

The big ranchers would be the walmart quality, so to say, and they still will sell alot more Keds than the Designers like Christian Dior or Prada....

These (designer)small ranchers are limited on their product and how much they can produce and can not possibly compete or affect in any manner of concern the (walmart)big ranchers imo.

jd

[Psychoblues]

Many of you jerks missed the entire point of the article and purpose for the post. I must take it that even if voluntary you want ALL food, toy, furniture, etc., etc. to end voluntary testing of their goods to ascertain quality and safety.

That's what the gwb administration did in THIS case. Are we to accept that type interference from our government that is purely designed to only increase market share for the corporate bean counters that don't want to test their own products?